Conor Dooley
Posts
464Following
144Followers
150I like cycling, powerlifting, bad video games and metal.
Otherwise, I occupy my time with various bits in RISC-V land.
~useless, placeholder, website: https://www.conchuod.ie/
Conor Dooley
conor
"Your message to linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org awaits moderator approval"
I hate these messages - one day I will actually write a proper filter for them rather than adding rules per domain...
I hate these messages - one day I will actually write a proper filter for them rather than adding rules per domain...
0
0
1
@krzk I think you probably guessed correctly in the thread, and it is a bit of feeling patronised. The various bot-like replies do seem a bit impersonal, but if you are experienced enough to feel patronised, you're experienced enough to understand why the bot-like/form-letters are required.
2
0
2
Conor Dooley
repeated
repeated
Palmer Dabbelt
palmer
Vector uABI thread on sw-dev: https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/g/sw-dev/c/9CI304vHtMo
1
3
4
Conor Dooley
conor
You think you're gonna sit down and get something done for once, and then CI failures left right and centre :)
0
0
2
@pdp7 @palmer If you don't like the template being there, you can always write a b4-cover-template file & point to it with `b4.prep-cover-template` in your git config (see https://b4.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/config.html#contributor-settings).
The default is:
```
${cover}
---
${shortlog}
${diffstat}
---
base-commit: ${base_commit}
change-id: ${change_id}
Best regards,
--
${signature}
```
The default is:
```
${cover}
---
${shortlog}
${diffstat}
---
base-commit: ${base_commit}
change-id: ${change_id}
Best regards,
--
${signature}
```
1
0
1
@matttbe @kernellogger checkpatch isn't an arbiter of truth to begin with, especially in arch code it reports a bunch of spurious stuff.
I was just a bit annoyed by it the other day when checkpatch complained, telling me that I should have a Closes: pointing to a competing patch for a problem.
I guess I had had it in my head that what was accepted was going to allow Reported-by: followed by Link: & complain only about "bare" Reported-by:.
> it is similar to the previous situation where there are cases where it doesn't even make sense to have a Link tag after a Reported-by.
Yah, that's probably fair.
I was just a bit annoyed by it the other day when checkpatch complained, telling me that I should have a Closes: pointing to a competing patch for a problem.
I guess I had had it in my head that what was accepted was going to allow Reported-by: followed by Link: & complain only about "bare" Reported-by:.
> it is similar to the previous situation where there are cases where it doesn't even make sense to have a Link tag after a Reported-by.
Yah, that's probably fair.
0
0
1
@kernellogger @matttbe I would like to make my CI stuff entirely ignore that tag, complaint, but I don't immediately see an ignore.
0
0
0